A Brief History Watching Why You Look The Grim Math

Transcription

How to Build a Happier Brain - Julie Beck - The Atlantic
10/28/13 12:08 AM
A Brief History
of the Word
Dude
POLITICS
BUSINESS
TECH
E NT E RT AIN M E N T
Special Reports In Focus Events E-books Newsletters
HEALTH
E DU C A T ION
SEXES
Watching
American
Movies in Paris
NATIONAL
GLOBAL
CHINA
Why You Look
Like Your Dog
VI D E O
The Grim Math
of the WorkingClass Housing
Crisis
MA GA Z I N E
Might Homeland's Big, Dumb Twist Pay Off After All? Spencer Kornhaber
How to Build a Happier Brain
VIDEO
A neuropsychological approach to happiness, by meeting core needs (safety, satisfaction,
and connection) and training neurons to overcome a negativity bias
JULIE BECK OCT 23 2013, 9:15 AM ET
Are the Rich
Getting Too
Much of the
Economic Pie?
Inequality explained
in pie charts (made of actual pie)
14k
Like
1,325
Tweet
258
166
Share
More
(perpetualplum/flickr)
There is a motif, in fiction and in life, of people having wonderful things happen
to them, but still ending up unhappy. We can adapt to anything, it seems—you
can get your dream job, marry a wonderful human, finally get 1 million dollars or
Twitter followers—eventually we acclimate and find new things to complain
about.
If you want to look at it on a micro level, take an average day. You go to
work; make some money; eat some food; interact with friends, family or coworkers; go home; and watch some TV. Nothing particularly bad happens, but
you still can’t shake a feeling of stress, or worry, or inadequacy, or loneliness.
According to Dr. Rick Hanson, a neuropsychologist, a member of U.C. Berkeley's
Greater Good Science Center's advisory board, and author of the book
Hardwiring Happiness: The New Brain Science of Contentment, Calm, and
Confidence, our brains are naturally wired to focus on the negative, which can
make us feel stressed and unhappy even though there are a lot of positive things
in our lives. True, life can be hard, and legitimately terrible sometimes. Hanson’s
book (a sort of self-help manual grounded in research on learning and brain
structure) doesn’t suggest that we avoid dwelling on negative experiences
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/10/how-to-build-a-happier-brain/280752/
Page 1 of 18
10/28/13 12:08 AM
altogether—that would be impossible. Instead, he advocates training our brains
to appreciate positive experiences when we do have them, by taking the time to
focus on them and install them in the brain.
I spoke with Hanson about this practice, which he calls “taking in the good,” and
how evolution optimized our brains for survival, but not necessarily happiness.
“Taking in the good” is the central idea of your book. Can you explain
what that is as a practice and how it works in the brain?
The simple idea is that we we all want to have good things inside ourselves:
happiness, resilience, love, confidence, and so forth. The question is, how do we
actually grow those, in terms of the brain? It’s really important to have positive
experiences of these things that we want to grow, and then really help them sink
in, because if we don’t help them sink in, they don’t become neural structure
very effectively. So what my book’s about is taking the extra 10, 20, 30 seconds
to enable everyday experiences to convert to neural structure so that
increasingly, you have these strengths with you wherever you go.
Related Story
Do you want to explain how that actually
works in terms of brain structure? What is
the connection between having this good
experience and making tangible changes in
the brain?
There’s a classic saying: "Neurons that fire together,
wire together." What that means is that repeated
patterns of mental activity build neural structure.
This process occurs through a lot of different
Meaning is Healthier Than
mechanisms, including sensitizing existing
Happiness
synapses and building new synapses, as well as
bringing more blood to busy regions. The problem
is that the brain is very good at building brain structure from negative
experiences. We learn immediately from pain—you know, “once burned, twice
shy.” Unfortunately, the brain is relatively poor at turning positive experiences
into emotional learning neural structure.
On page one of the intro you said: “Positive thinking … is usually
wasted on the brain.” Can you explain how positive thinking is
different from taking in the good?
That’s a central, central question. First, positive thinking by definition is
conceptual and generally verbal. And most conceptual or verbal material doesn’t
have a lot of impact on how we actually feel or function over the course of the
day. I know a lot of people who have this kind of positive, look on the bright side
yappity yap, but deep down they’re very frightened, angry, sad, disappointed,
hurt, or lonely. It hasn’t sunk in. Think of all the people who tell you why the
world is a good place, but they’re still jerks.
I think positive thinking’s helpful, but in my view, it’s not so much as positive
thinking as clear thinking. I think it’s important to be able to see the whole
picture, the whole mosaic of reality. Both the tiles that are negative, as well as
the tiles that are neutral and positive. Unfortunately, we have brains that are
incentivized toward seeing the negative tiles, so if anything, deliberately looking
WRITERS
Spencer Kornhaber
Might Homeland's Big, Dumb Twist Pay Off
After All? OCT 27, 2013
Page 2 of 18
10/28/13 12:08 AM
for the positive tiles just kind of levels the playing field. But deep down, I’m a
little leery of the term positive thinking because I think it could imply that we’re
overlooking the negative, and I think it’s important to face the negative.
James Fallows
Time to End the 'War on Terror' (For Real)
OCT 27, 2013
The second reason why I think most positive thinking is wasted on the brain
goes to this fundamental distinction between activation and installation. When
people are having positive thinking or even most positive experiences, the
person is not taking the extra 10, 20 seconds to heighten the installation into
neural structure. So it’s not just positive thinking that’s wasted on the brain; it’s
most positive experiences that are wasted on the brain.
Megan Garber
These Proto-GIFs of the 19th Century Put
Today's GIFs to Shame OCT 26, 2013
Garance Franke-Ruta
Hillary Clinton's Endless Fight OCT 25, 2013
Why did our brains evolve to focus on the negative?
As our ancestors evolved, they needed to pass on their genes. And day-to-day
threats like predators or natural hazards had more urgency and impact for
survival. On the other hand, positive experiences like food, shelter, or mating
opportunities, those are good, but if you fail to have one of those good
experiences today, as an animal, you would have a chance at one tomorrow. But
if that animal or early human failed to avoid that predator today, they could
literally die as a result.
That’s why the brain today has what scientists call a negativity bias. I describe it
as like Velcro for the bad, Teflon for the good. For example, negative information
about someone is more memorable than positive information, which is why
negative ads dominate politics. In relationships, studies show that a good, strong
relationship needs at least a 5:1 ratio of positive to negative interactions.
Positive experiences use standard memory systems: moving from short-term
buffers to long-term storage. But to move from a short-term buffer to long-term
storage, an experience needs to be held in that short-term buffer long enough for
it to transfer to long-term storage—but how often do we actually do that? We
might be having one passing, normal, everyday positive experience after
another: getting something done, look outside and flowers are blooming,
children are laughing, chocolate tastes great, but these experiences are not
transferring to storage or leading to any lasting value.
Ta-Nehisi Coates
When Plunder Becomes A System Of
Governance OCT 25, 2013
Molly Ball
The Glorious, Futile Progressive Policy
Agenda OCT 25, 2013
Sam Price-Waldman
How Calvin and Hobbes Inspired a
Generation OCT 25, 2013
James Hamblin
Unapologetically Racist Voter-ID Comments
on The Daily Show Fell Republican Official
OCT 25, 2013
Andrew Cohen
Want a Fair Trial? Pay for Your Own Lawyer
OCT 25, 2013
More in Health
Matt Schiavenza
How Humiliation Drove Modern Chinese
History OCT
25, 2013
Death
Is Having a
Moment
ERIKA HAYASAKI
Robinson Meyer
90% of Wikipedia's Editors Are Male—Here's
What They're Doing About It OCT 25, 2013
If Your Heart
Stopped Tonight
Katherine
Wells
DANIELA J. LAMAS
Why Messing With People Is the Best Job in
the World OCT 25, 2013
A Hairy Chest
Matthew O'Brien
Makes a Man
Raising the Medicare Age: A Popular Idea
ROSS KENNETH URKEN
With Shockingly Few Benefits OCT 25, 2013
Emma Green
(mape_s/flickr
When you’re trying to avoid these threats, that’s what you call, in the
book, “reactive mode” for the brain. But even though we’re wired to
When Western Journalists Loved China's
Communists OCT 25, 2013
Olga Khazan
Page 3 of 18
10/28/13 12:08 AM
dwell on negative things, you still say the default state is still the
relaxed or “responsive mode,” right?
Let’s take the example of zebras, borrowing from Robert Sapolsky’s great book
Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers. Zebras in the wild spend most of their time in a
state of relative well-being. Sometimes they’re hungry, but often they’re in a
fairly relaxed place; they’re eating grass, they’re with each other in the herd.
They’re in the responsive mode of the brain, what I call the green zone. Then all
of a sudden, a bunch of lions attack. All the zebras go into to the reactive mode,
they have this burst of fight-or-flight stress, they go into the red zone, and then
this episode of stress, as Sapolsky writes, ends quickly one way or another. And
then they go back to the responsive mode.
So, Mother Nature’s plan is for us to spend long periods in the responsive mode.
And it’s good for animals to seek to rest in the responsive mode, which is when
the body repairs itself. But we have also evolved the capacity to switch out of the
responsive mode very, very quickly, for a fight or flight or freeze purpose. And
then we need to learn intensely what happened, to try to avoid going there ever
again. So the resting state is actually very good for humans, for our long-term
physical and mental health. On the other hand, it’s very important for us to learn
from our negative experiences to try to prevent them in the future.
You write that people are more likely to get stuck in the reactive
mode today, but if modernity takes care of most of our basic needs,
why are we more likely to be in the reactive mode today than, say, in
the wild?
It’s a deep question. I think it’s easy to sentimentalize hunter-gatherer life. There
was a lot about it that was very hard: there was no pain control, there was no
refrigeration, there was no rule of law. Childbirth was a dangerous experience
for many people. There’s a lot about modernity that’s good for the Stone Age
brain. We do have the ability in the developed world—far from perfect, of course
—to control pain. We have modern medicine, sanitation, flushed toilets and so
forth and, in many places, the rule of law. But on the other hand, modernity
exposes us to chronic mild to moderate stresses, which are not good for longterm mental or physical health.
For me, one of the takeaways from that is to repeatedly internalize the sense of
having our three core needs met: safety, satisfaction, and connection. By
repeatedly internalizing that self-sense, we essentially grow the neural
substrates of experiencing that those needs are met, even as we deal with
challenges, so that we become increasingly able to manage threats or losses or
rejections without tipping into the red zone.
Could you talk a little more about those core needs—safety,
satisfaction, and connection, and how to meet them?
There are certain kinds of key experiences that address key issues. For example,
experiences of relaxation, of calming, of feeling protected and strong and
resourced, those directly address issues of our safety system. And having
internalized again and again a sense of calm, a person is going to be more able to
face situations at work or in life in general without getting so rattled by them,
without being locked into the reactive mode of the brain.
Hurricane Sandy, Before and After, One
Year Later
Most Popular
1 The Man Who Would Teach Machines to
Think
2 How to Build a Happier Brain
3 How Humiliation Drove Modern Chinese
History
4 The 50 Greatest Breakthroughs Since the
Wheel
5 A Hairy Chest Makes a Man
6 Our Fear of Al-Qaeda Hurts Us More Than
Al-Qaeda Does
7 The Battle for Power on the Internet
8 A Brief History of Dude
9 All Can Be Lost: The Risk of Putting Our
Knowledge in the Hands of Machines
10 Lou Reed Never Compromised
Page 4 of 18
10/28/13 12:08 AM
In terms of our need for satisfaction, of experiences of gratitude, gladness,
accomplishment, feeling successful, feeling that there’s a fullness in your life
rather than an emptiness or a scarcity. As people increasingly install those traits,
they’re going to be more able to deal with issues such as loss, or being thwarted,
or being disappointed.
Lastly, in terms of our need for connection, the more that people can have a
sense of inclusion or a sense of being seen, or appreciated, or liked or loved; the
more that people can cultivate the traits of being compassionate, kind, and
loving themselves, the more that they’re going to be able to stay in a responsive
mode of the brain, even if they deal with issues in this connection system like
being rejected or devalued or left out by somebody else.
Do people differ in the sort of mode that they tend to be in, reactive
or responsive, based on their personal history or personality?
The short answer, I’m sure, is yes. There’s a general finding in psychology that,
on average, about a third of our personal characteristics are innate, and roughly
two-thirds are acquired one way or another. And so, it’s true, I think, that some
people are just by tendency more reactive, more sensitive, fiery. They come out
of the box that way. On the other hand, anybody can gradually develop
themselves over time through repeatedly internalizing positive experiences and
also learning from negative ones. There’s been research on the development of
resilience, as well as many anecdotal tales of people who were very reactive
because they grew up in a reactive environment—a lot of poverty or chaos in
their home or within the family—but then over time, become increasingly sturdy
and even-keeled as they navigate the storms of life.
Just In
Might Homeland's Big, Dumb
Twist Pay Off After All?
SPENCER KORNHABER
Lou Reed Never Compromised
SPENCER KORNHABER
Time to End the 'War on Terror'
(For Real)
JAMES FALLOWS
You said in the book that regular exercise can be a factor; can you
explain how that helps?
It’s interesting, and I’m someone that doesn’t like exercise. Research shows that
exercise is a very good physical health factor obviously, but it also confers mental
health benefits. For example, regular exercise is roughly as powerful on average
for mild depression as medication is, studies show.
The research that's
relevant is on learning,
both cognitive learning
and especially
emotional learning.
People who are depressed, mildly to moderately
depressed, are still having positive experiences, but
they’re not changing from them; they’re not
learning from them. One of the theories about why
exercise seems to have such a powerful effect on
depression in terms of lifting the mood, is that
exercise promotes the growth of new neurons in the
hippocampus, which is involved with learning—
both learning from specific life experiences, as well as learning how to put things
into context, see things in the bigger picture. It’s possible that as exercise
promotes the growth of neurons in the hippocampus, people become more able
to cope with life and make use of positive experiences.
Taking in the good seemed like something you started to do on your
own in college, and then later you found that research supported the
practice, is that right?
A lot of people stumble upon something that works for them, and then later on
Page 5 of 18
10/28/13 12:08 AM
they find out there’s a lot of research that’s related to it. For me, the research
that’s relevant is on learning, both cognitive learning and especially emotional
learning. How do people grow psychologically? The research on that shows that
it’s a two-stage process of activation and installation. Also as a long-time
clinician, I began to think about how relatively good we are as clinicians at
activating positive mental states, but how bad we generally are at helping people
actually install those activated states into neural structure. That was a real wakeup call for me, as a therapist.
You include a lot of testimonials, examples from people in the book.
Is this something you do in your work with your patients?
Yeah, definitely. It’s changed the way I do therapy and more generally it’s
changed the way I talk with people in life in general. Let me turn it around, to go
back to your question about modernity. On the one hand, due to modernity,
many people report that moment to moment, they’re having fairly positive
experiences, they’re not being chased by lions, they’re not in a war zone, they’re
not in agonizing pain, they have decent medical care. And yet on the other hand,
many people today would report that they have a fundamental sense of feeling
stressed and pressured and disconnected from other people, longing for
closeness that they don’t have, frustrated, driven, etc. Why is that? I think one
reason is that we’re simply wasting the positive experiences that we’re having, in
part due to modernity, because we’re not taking into account that design bug in
the Stone Age brain that it doesn’t learn very well.
For me, by repeatedly taking in the good to grow inner strength, you become
much more able to deal with the bad. For me, taking in the good is motivated by
the recognition that there’s a lot about life is hard.
96
Jump to comments
Recommend
166
258
1,325
14k
Tweet
Share
PRESENTED BY
Email
8
reddit
Print
JULIE BECK is an associate editor at The Atlantic, where she covers health.
ALL POSTS
EMAIL
Follow @julieebeck
509 followers
AROUND THE WEB (Sponsored)
by Taboola
5 Body Language Poses
That Can Sabotage
Success
13 Silver Vixens That'll
Have You Canceling Your
Next Dye Job
What Kids Who Don't Eat
Vegetables Look Like
When They Grow Up
OPEN Forum
Refinery29
Nick Mom
Street Style: The Top 7
Trends From Fall 2013
DETAILS
Page 6 of 18
Try 2 Free Issues!
10/28/13 12:08 AM
Go
SUBSCRIBE
RENEW
GIVE A GIFT
DIGITAL EDITION
More Video
A Hairy Chest Makes a Man
ROSS KENNETH URKEN
OCT 25, 2013
How Calvin and Hobbes Inspired a Generation
American Education Isn't
Mediocre—It's Deeply
Unequal
JULIA RYAN
Tweet
OCT 24, 2013
These Proto-GIFs of the 19th
Century Put Today's GIFs to
Shame
MEGAN GARBER
OCT 26, 2013
Lou Reed Never Compromised
Elsewhere on the web (Sponsored Links)
It's Official! "Terminator 5" is On (Muscle and Fitness)
Whither the American Left?
MOLLY BALL
OCT 25, 2013
Photos: The Most Hilarious Road Signs in the World (Travel
Channel)
All Grown Up: Meet 8 Harry Potter Stars Today (Refinery29)
The Antidote To Emptiness (CEO.com)
Fall Asleep Quickly Without The Use Of Drugs
(JaysonFeltner.com)
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.
96 comments
5
Page 7 of 18
10/28/13 12:08 AM
Leave a message...
Oldest
Share
Community
Clover Crimson
5 days ago
•
http://www.economist.com/news/...
3
Reply
miltlee
Share ›
5 days ago
•
Excellent article. Building neural networks is clearly the key to prolonged happiness but it takes a daily exercise to do it. Those little dendrites can bloom or prune in 4
days! So if we neglect "taking in the good" for 4 days - then the work that's been done
to grow/build the network is lost. Thanks for this piece!
21
2
Reply
TJRadcliffe
Share ›
miltlee • 4 days ago
Do you have a reference for that four day number, or any argument for the
claim that it is relevant to the sort of long-term changes in neural wiring that
this article addresses?
10
Jesse
Reply
Share ›
5 days ago
•
If we are nothing but an evolutionarily-built house for neuron firings, on what basis are
you delineating what is "the good"?
7
2
Reply
BanjoBuxby
Share ›
Jesse • 5 days ago
it's directly proportional to the number of copies sold at 15.60 hardcover or
10.99 for the kindle edition..
25
1
Reply
Share ›
roac
Putting this another way: If "success" in life is a matter of brain states, why not
just replace people with computers hard-wired to feel "happy" at all times?
And get rid of our messy resource-consuming, carbon emitting bodies entirely,
a la Kurzweil?
(A radical alternative, embraced by some, is to set your life goal in terms of
objective goals, not subjective ones. Such as -- to take an unlikely example -improving the lives of other living beings.)
7
2
mintap
Reply
Share ›
"Good" could only be temporary feelings of pleasure and passing on our
genes. Would we want friends that lived based on that?
1
3
Kirk Holden
Reply
Share ›
Successful off-spring is the primary measure of good. If I am a good father, my
children will be good parents and my grandchildren will be good parents. My
neurons fire because I had good parents.
2
2
Reply
Share ›
Page 8 of 18
Jesse
10/28/13 12:08 AM
Kirk Holden • 5 days ago
There seems to be a bit of confusion here as to whether the "good" is
considered the mere prolongation of your genes through off-spring--i.e.
their mere existing--(implied by your last sentence), or whether your offspring actually turn out "good" (on top of their existing). If you mean the
latter, as you mainly seem to, then that only begs the original question.
If you mean the former, then you'd be saying that mere existence =
"good," in which case we'd have no need to take Dr. Hanson's advice
and "train" our neurons for "the good"--they would already have it.
2
Reply
mintap
Share ›
Kirk Holden • 5 days ago
Successful off-spring may gain success by enslaving other people.
Would that make them good?
4
1
Jacob Estes
Reply
Share ›
You know what "good" is. This game is silly.
9
1
Reply
mintap
Share ›
Jacob Estes • 5 days ago
But why should man know what good is?
Unless of course because "what can be known about God is plain to
them, because God has shown it to them."
3
2
Reply
Jacob Estes
Share ›
mintap • 5 days ago
Pleasure and pain, good and bad, right and wrong; Man knows
these things without God. God showing to man "what can be
known about God" has nothing to do with it. Neither does us
"just" being neurons.
12
Reply
mintap
Share ›
How do you know you know these things without God?
Why should you have any idea about good and bad?
1
3
Jacob Estes
Reply
Share ›
I only know that I do know them. If there is God or not is
unknowable, but there is no evidence for it. If you want to debate
the existence of God, I think that is a separate argument.
Morality without God is what I think we are talking about here.
If I have gotten my morality from God, it's the same as if I was
given cancer or cerebral palsy, and for that matter the same as if
I was given dark or light hair. It was there from birth and is part
of me. I do not get updates from God on morality. There is not a
reference. (Unless you count the Bible, but I certainly do not get
my morals from the Bible, and if we want to argue that point, I
think it is yet another discussion).
What I am saying is that God is silent in our lives on morality. It is
in us. We are capable of discerning good and bad. If this is
Page 9 of 18
10/28/13 12:08 AM
in us. We are capable of discerning good and bad. If this is
because of God, then so be it. We cannot know that it is or is
not, because that depends on knowing His existence.
5
Reply
mintap
Share ›
FIrst, how do you know it is unknowable if there is a God or not?
Think about it: if there is someone as powerful as God, surely
that power includes letting people know something, and that
something could include something about God, and even
something about what is good and bad. The method could even
be though writing it into human nature.
What there is no evidence for is if human thought in-and-of-itself
is trustworthy on morality.
If you have gotten your morality from within your own
autonomous human nature, what are the "updates" or
"references" and what makes them trustworthy?
What I'm saying is God is not silent in our lives on morality,
because it is in us, and we are capable of discerning good and
bad. This cannot be because of our own autonomous nature
because then it is ultimately untrustworthy. And it is completely
consistent that we can know where it is from if the source would
be powerful enough to reveal that it is the source.
3
3
Reply
Jacob Estes
Share ›
This debate has become one of whether God exists.
If He does, then morality must come from God.
If God does not exist, then morality cannot come from God, but
must still exist, as we exist and have a concept if morality.
If you'd like to have that debate, let's. But I think this one has
become that.
3
Reply
mintap
Share ›
How does one even go about really debating if God exists? The
very concept of debate assumes that there is communication,
mind, and trustworthy thoughts. How would one even get to
such point without first a trustworthy and ultimate basis for such
necessary components?
It is the same as with morality. How does one get to the point of
justifying morality from within themselves?
1
3
Jacob Estes
Reply
Share ›
This debate truly cannot continue if you think that nothing we
know to be can exist without God. The debate I would enter into
would be evidence against evidence. Your belief precludes that.
What I offer is that this world exists as it does, and whether God
exists or not doesn't change that.
6
1
Reply
Share ›
Page 10 of 18
don bronkema
10/28/13 12:08 AM
Rite--kosmos as personality is dispositively rebutted by
--the ontological conundrum
--undemonstrable volition
--consciousness as a sweeper-wave consensus, per Libet
--Suskind's Hologram or Maldacena's strings or...[ad inf]
Now, how do we persuade the 99.99% of respondents who
know N to the square-root of minus-1 ?
1
Reply
mintap
Share ›
don bronkema • 4 days ago
That is why the best starting point from the human perspective is
that: a triune ultimate personality is distinct from the kosmos.
(i.e., "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.")
That way, unity and diversity are a reflection of God being both
one substance and three persons. Really the conundrum you
mention is simply one of pride vs. humility.
Information (i.e., the Word of John 1:1-3) is a fundamental
building block of the universe, whether it is seen as
"holographic," "string-based," etc.
1
2
mintap
Reply
Share ›
Actually, the debate truly cannot continue if you think all thought,
words, and minds are just baseless accidents, that happen to
exist as is. Under your framework there is no reason at all to
trust anything that you or I think or communicate.
If we want to debate anything at all we could work under my
framework, where thought, words, and minds are at least
somewhat trustworthy because the self-existent ultimate source
and sustainer of such components is powerful enough and
trustworthy enough.
But as you may see, working under my framework, precludes the
point you may desire to make. That is the problem you have with
such a desire.
What I offer is that autonomous man in-and-of-himself has no
solid reason to think concepts such as "exist" or "world" (e.g.,
presumably something you can perceive) are trustworthy at all.
So really I don't see how under your framework you have
anything of substance at all in your statement, "this world exists
as it does."
1
3
Reply
Jacob Estes
Share ›
That's what I just said.
Reply
mintap
Share ›
So what are you trying to say? Do you really think your
framework has no substance at all?
Page 11 of 18
Reply
Jacob Estes
10/28/13 12:08 AM
Share ›
What I am saying is that you cannot be debated on this topic
because you cannot conceive of a world where God might or
might not exist. There can't be a sensible discussion because
you will not enter into it.
What you are saying about Man only makes sense if God exists.
There can't be a debate if the opponent must first agree with you
to discuss it.
2
Reply
mintap
Share ›
I agree. What I am saying about man makes sense if God exists.
What someone of an opposing view says about man makes
sense if--what? [I don't have any way to finish this sentence.]
It is not that I can't conceive of a world where God might or
might not exist. Of course I can imagine one (like many imagined
worlds, it would be inconsistent and often contradictory). Instead
it is even beyond that. I cannot conceive of a world where
conception itself has no basis to exist.
Reply
mjk
Share ›
Jacob Estes • a day ago
Of course God exists. God is a word
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God.
A Good Question is a God Quest
A God Quest is a Good Question
A God Question is a Good Quest
A Good Quest is a God Question
The correct answer is, the correct question.
It is literally all about the Words (Christ was Word in the flesh).
Like any and all words, God has a meaning and can be defined.
God is that which is MOST GOOD. God Most High, yahweh /
yhwh, literally translates to WHY.
Why is the only question that can bring Understanding.
Understanding is the HIGHEST POINT (in other words,
see more
Reply
dsch
Share ›
See: every Western philosopher from Plato on. But hey, why bother when we
have neuroscience?
2
Reply
mintap
Share ›
dsch • 5 days ago
Why is it good for neuroscientists to represent the science accurately?
Science is nothing without ethics, and science does not give us ethics.
Page 12 of 18
1
3
Reply
10/28/13 12:08 AM
Share ›
don bronkema
Phylogeny [& by extension, the evolution-potentiated mother's
knee, peer influence, etc], is the only demonstrable source of
morality [google Bio 101]...the kosmos, soi-disant, is silent...
1
Reply
mintap
Share ›
don bronkema • 4 days ago
So you think it is moral for a mother to train a child to act in ways
that solely supports her linage and disregards other's?
Do you really live that way?
Your problem may be in a contradiction within your use of
"demonstrable." Your idea about what is demonstrable is not
demonstrable. That is too much of a blind leap of faith for many
people.
Instead, morality from the Divine Law Giver and Creator of
humans is written into human nature. This is hardly silent as it is
the basis for anyone being able to demonstrate anything.
2
TFD
2
Reply
Share ›
I don't think the goal of this research is directly about increasing "the good."
It's about reducing suffering and increasing subjective well-being.
16
Avatar
Augustulus
Reply
•
Share ›
5 days ago
Don't fall for this building a happier brain business. Anyone who talks about brains at
this length is just setting us up as food for zombies. Zombies eat brains. They want to
eat happy brains, it makes them happy zombies. This article is in the Soylent Green
tradition of turning humans into food. Beware everyone!
41
5
Reply
Solitus
Share ›
Augustulus • 4 days ago
Now that's funny! In WW Z though they mostly bite arms and legs. Brains must
be the main course.
Reply
dormilon
Share ›
Like the Matrix, I have never understood why humans are chosen as an ideal
food source. Consider the pig, cow, or sheep. Each is considerably more
docile and reaches physical maturity much quicker. Besides, they taste better,
as well.
And why, exactly, do zombies require nutrition? And are they known to
supplement their diet with ruffage to preserve long term GI health and
regularity?
So many questions...
3
Reply
Augustulus
Share ›
dormilon • 4 days ago
In The Matrix humans were used as an energy source, like a battery,
Page 13 of 18
10/28/13 12:08 AM
which is a distinction from being a food. In today's world would you call
the electricity consumption of a computer, 'food?' But zombies actually
physically ingest food, using their remaining teeth to mash up organic
material, and their preferred food is human brains. But why do they
need human brains? Are you serious, have you been living in a tree?
Zombies need living human brains because these brains encode, within
their molecular constituents, the gamut of pre-zombie human
experiences, which the zombies must continually strive to replace,
because they cannot generate genuine living human experiences
themselves, because they are re-animated corpses. That's why they are
zombies, because they died at some point in the past, and their own
rotting brains cannot generate the HUMAN experiences they hunger for,
and in the process of stumbling about in a re-animated state their
zombie physiology is metabolizing the complex brain molecules of their
living victims, which must be replaced on a steady basis. So, unless you
are a spiritualist, and believe that human subjective experiences of life,
the world, etc. are NOT expressed within a MATERIAL medium, i.e. a
physical/biological ENCODING of those experiences, you must see the
absolute zombie NEED for human brains. QED
2
Reply
dormilon
Share ›
In The Real World, pigs are used as an energy source for
humans, like a battery. Question remains valid: Why, then,
wouldn't computers ALSO consider the pig as a MUCH more
manageable energy source, one that obviates the need for an
unreliable Matrix?
That aside, I am indebted to you for your gracious, and possibly
life-saving, explanation of zombies. Though I do wonder if the
quality of the brain is proportional to the prior life experiences of
it's host. Wouldn't that make the brains of our elderly most
desirable and, as a bonus, easier to obtain? Indeed, couldn't we
also establish some treaty with this horrible creatures wherein,
as an end-of-life decision, they might play a crucial role for
caretakers and funeral directors? And lastly, are these human
experiences less fulfilling (to zombies) if the native language of
the hosts differs from the zombie's native language?
So many questions...
2
Augustulus
Reply
Share ›
dormilon • 4 days ago
Now you are touching on the question of how deeply the
molecular encoding of experience descends, in the human brain.
You raise the issue of foreign languages. But a very young
human child is able to proficiently learn any human language
given early enough exposure, meaning that the actual superficial
lexicographical/grammatic specificity of any human language
masks a much deeper identity between all languages since they
express common human experiences. The zombie's digestive
processing of a human brain operates at this deepest level, I
think (although we still lack the clinical trials to prove this
conclusively), because the field experience indicates that
zombies can be adequately nourished by eating foreign
scientists' brains, when they go on a rampage at a research
facility as in the Resident Evil films, and some of those scientists
Page 14 of 18
10/28/13 12:08 AM
facility as in the Resident Evil films, and some of those scientists
speak with a heavy foreign accent, which would make them very
suspect to Amerikan Heartland conservative zombies. All these
questions can only be answered with a huge dedicated research
project that I urge you to support in a lobbying campaign of your
Congreessperson/zombie.
4
Avatar
mintap
•
Reply
Share ›
5 days ago
"Taking the extra 10, 20 seconds to heighten the installation into neural structure" =
"Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving." Col 4:2
10
2
Reply
Mazoola
Share ›
"Attention! Attention"
"Be here now; now be here."
And both of these avoid the trap of wanting to externalize an internal process
by adding a superfluous "because" -- as in, "wow, life is good, because...." If
what follows "because" is "...I love my neighbor as myself," I'm all for it. It's
just that being in the responsive mode makes it all too easy for one to append,
"...I smote the heathen that came not up to keep the feast of tabernacles," or
whatever.
It also seems to me the "because" clause essentially short-circuits any
potential benefits from reinforcing positivity. Now one is no longer helping
compensate for the brain's negative bias by "up-voting" the positive
experiences of everyday life but is instead telling the brain such experiences
are blessings received from another -- and, presumably, dependent upon one
continuing to please that other.
Perhaps, then, man's quest for God is merely an artifact of the brain's innate
negativity. Unwilling to accept positive experiences as a given and thus risk
lowering its guard, the brain chooses to see them as moments of undeserved
grace which could be taken away at a moment's notice. What should be
celebrated as a fundamental right of human existence instead becomes just
another justification for the brain's eternal vigilance and ongoing state of alert.*
Instead of ameliorating stress, we've now added another stressor.
__________
* Insert Bill of Rights/Homeland Security analogy here.
4
1
Reply
mintap
Share ›
Mazoola • 5 days ago
By adding that superfluous "presumably," you are directing the
thanksgiving inward instead of outward.
Do you not understand the concept of grace, freely given?
There is no eternal alert, added stressor, or unwillingness to lower one's
guard. There is real and trustworthy peace that surpasses all
understanding.
What about your internal self makes you think it is so ultimate and
trustworthy?
Why is your brain (this small piece of dying flesh) so much better at
offering grace?
2
1
Reply
Share ›
Page 15 of 18
TJRadcliffe
10/28/13 12:08 AM
Excellent contrast between the positive, demonstrable good that science does
with the pernicious nonsense promoted by scripture. There couldn't be more
difference between taking a short time to reflected on an "take in" a good thing
*that actually happened* with "continuing steadfastly in prayer" and being everwatchful, and being expected to be thankful for maintaining that state of
steadfast hyper-vigilance.
On the one hand, the science-based advice has a wealth of empirical evidence
that it improves mental outlook, and the faith-based advice is known
empirically to have produced 2000 years of misery, poverty and war.
3
Reply
mintap
Share ›
TJRadcliffe • 4 days ago
watchful = reflecting on a thing that actually happened
What this is is using the scientific method, finding some amount of
positive, demonstrable good, and to some degree catching up with
what has already been revealed by God a long time ago.
That is the basic progress of scientific knowledge, and as we have been
doing for 1000s of years we can continue to predict that more and more
discoveries within Creation will match the revelation of the Creator.
Such an hypothesis has been confirmed many times over.
2
Reply
mjk
Share ›
TJRadcliffe • a day ago
Prayer is a genuine POWER. It is rude and ignorant of you to say
"pernicious nonsense promoted by Scripture". The fact that you even
say it shows your ignorance, to me, but not to yourself. And if you
cannot, do not or will not STOP at that, and really think about it, then it
is a problem with your Heart and not with your Mind.
Scripture is a language, just like science is a language and even law is a
language. Even music and poetry are languages. It would be wise of
you to not speak foul of a language you do not know and do not speak.
3
Avatar
Sam Smith
•
1
Reply
Share ›
5 days ago
Interesting, I think one can prune synapses, and there is some plasticity in the brain,
even the adult brain. So, I guess the idea is to really focus on positive experiences to
try and strengthen those connections and over time the brain is happier? So when I
enjoy my clear, cold water as I read this. I should focus on how awesome that water is
rather than following the general "be positive" mantra.
11
1
Reply
tim305
Share ›
Sam Smith • 5 days ago
Even better, focus on the delicious air you are inhaling. It's there for you all the
time.
3
1
Reply
Solitus
Share ›
tim305 • 4 days ago
Depends where you live.
3
Nam Le
Reply
Share ›
Page 16 of 18
Nam Le
10/28/13 12:08 AM
It appears so. Even scientifically supported meditation techniques like MBSR
stress that the important trait to be trained is attention and not so much "I'm a
great guy and gosh darn it people like me" type thinking. Attention to life
experiences makes the mind less reactive emotionally to the experience and
therefore more balanced in terms of the focus on good and bad and neutral.
6
Avatar
seanmkelley
Reply
•
Share ›
5 days ago
this builds on the groundbreaking work of songwriter and amateur neuroscientist
Johnny Mercer's "Accentuate the Positive"
6
Avatar
1
Reply
Economics Institute
Share ›
•
5 days ago
like most pop sci this article kinda states the obvious
2
3
Reply
Share ›
Load more comments
ALSO ON THE ATLANTIC
AROUND THE WEB
Hillary Clinton's Endless Fight
Middle Class To Be Crushed By
Obamacare Taxes Money Morning
93 comments
WHAT'S THIS?
Our Fear of Terrorism Hurts Us More
Than Terrorism Does 195 comments
Leno Mocks Obama for Incompetence
90% of Wikipedia's Editors Are Male—
Here's What They're Doing …
The Unbelievable Thing Firefox Is Doing
Now OPEN Forum
69 comments
She Sued McDonald's Over Coffee, But
There's More to the … The New York Times
These Proto-GIFs of the 19th Century
Put Today's GIFs to Shame 12 comments
Subscribe
Downtrend.com
Add Disqus to your site
ATLANTIC MEDIA
Fair Ride Operator Charged with
Assault for Alleged Tampering
Twitter Is Still Looking for a Female
Board Member, But the IPO Has to
Happen First
The NSA Allegedly Never Told Obama
About its World Leaders Spying
Program
The Plight of New York's Hidden
Homeless: Best #Cityreads of the
Week
A 'Discount' Option for Space Travel?
The Legacy of Urban Renewal Helped
Make Morrissey Sad
More from Atlantic Cities
More from Atlantic Wire
FOLLOW THE ATLANTIC
App store
Facebook
Twitter
Linkedin
Quartz Daily Brief—Asia edition—
Apple earnings, JP Morgan’s
settlement snag, quarter-mile-wide
asteroid, tech-induced illness
Avoiding Obamacare's 'Death Spiral'
Solar Power on the Rise in Golden
State
Here are the signs that China’s
Lehman moment is inevitable
In Fracking, West Virignia Sees a
Second Chance
How Dr. Martens boots used counterculture to defy the punishing fashion
cycle
More from National Journal
Book of Lamentations: A 'Review' of
DSM-5 | The New Inquiry
What Is Art? | Texas Monthly
Reading List: The Culture of
Cosplayers | Longreads
More from Longreads
More from Quartz
E-NEWSLETTERS
INFORMATION
Today's Top Stories
FAQ
This Week
Subscribe Help
This Month
Masthead
New at In Focus
Store
Atlantic Cities
Merchandise
5 Best Columns
Jobs
SUBSCRIBE
Page 17 of 18
Google Plus
10/28/13 12:08 AM
Privacy
FIRST NAME
Site Map
Tumblr
RSS
LAST NAME
Terms and Conditions
Advertise
ADDRESS 1
Advertising Guidelines
ADDRESS 2
Press
CITY
Contact Us
Special Reports
Atlantic Scene
Ebook
Events
STATE
Get 10 issues a year
and save 65% off the
cover price
ZIP
EMAIL
Next ►
Atlantic Media
Fraud alert regarding The Atlantic
Copyright © 2013 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All Rights Reserved. CDN powered by Edgecast Networks. Insights powered by Parsely .
Page 18 of 18

A Brief History Watching Why You Look The Grim Math

Transcription

Similar documents

PEA-0137 A1 Real Life Poster_M4, 03.indd

Wedding Stationery Order Form

Felicity`s Blog

Wait - RAYMA Sdn Bhd

info link

Vintage Airstream Becomes a Cozy Place to

Bad TIPPERS - FREE 4 ALL

Tales of a Ranting Ginger: Giveaway

Diapositive 1

my account - Atlantic City Electric